Cited by 661Bipolar Disorder and TreatmentSchizophrenia research and treatmentTreatment of Major Depression

Long-Term Lithium Therapy for Bipolar Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Geddes, John R., Burgess, Sally, Hawton, Keith, Jamison, Kay, Goodwin, Guy M.·2004·American Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective The authors sought to determine the efficacy and acceptability of lithium for relapse prevention in bipolar disorder. Method A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing lithium with placebo in the long-term treatment of bipolar disorders was conducted. Data were obtained from searching the registers of the Cochrane Collaboration; reviewing reference lists, journals, and conference abstracts; and contacting authors, experts, and pharmaceutical companies. Outcomes investigated included risk of relapse (manic, depressive, and total) as well as risk of specific adverse effects and total withdrawal rates. Results Five randomized controlled trials (770 participants) were included. Lithium was more effective than placebo in preventing all relapses (random effects relative risk=0.65, 95% CI=0.50 to 0.84) and manic relapses (relative risk=0.62, 95% CI=0.40 to 0.95). The protective effect of lithium on depressive relapses was smaller and was less robust (relative risk=0.72, 95% CI=0.49 to 1.07). Conclusions Lithium treatment reduces the risk of relapse in bipolar disorder. The preventive effect is clear for manic episodes, although it is equivocal for depressive episodes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/appi.ajp.161.2.217

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Publication bias might be particularly important in a review including studies with small numbers of events and small size of the trials, because only one or two moderately sized trials with neutral or negative results could materially affect the estimates.

    “Publication bias might be particularly important in a review including studies with small numbers of events and small size of the trials, because only one or two moderately sized trials with neutral or negative results could materially affect the estimates.26”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Geddes, J. R., Burgess, S., Hawton, K., Jamison, K., & Goodwin, G. M.
Affiliations
Warneford Hospital (GB)
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2004-02-01
Volume
161
Issue
2
Pages
217-222
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
OpenAlex
W2099017168
Cited by
661
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 38
FWCI
4.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
lithium, bipolar disorder, long-term lithium therapy, relapse prevention, manic relapse, depression relapse, treatment efficacy, adverse effects, drug withdrawal, treatment acceptability
MeSH terms
Bipolar Disorder, Humans, Time, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Lithium Carbonate, Antimanic Agents, Secondary Prevention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review